The first Nuclear Security Summit was held in 2010, followed by two such meetings in Seoul in 2012 and The Hague in 2014. The purpose of the summit process is to prevent criminals from accessing stockpiles of radioactive materials, reduce highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium, enhance the detection of smuggling and ensure cyber security. The latest summit aimed to consolidate progress made so far, such as seeing countries that committed to certain actions implement these. A big question before the Washington summit was how nations can track progress in the future and whether the United States will continue to convene such meetings under its next president.
Delegations from 51 countries, plus major groups like the European Union and the United Nations, attended the fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington. The global forum provided an opportunity to discuss the adoption of measures to counter terrorism threats related to nuclear and other radiological weapons and review the proposed safety measures. The NSS is a plurilateral process of 52 states and four organisations, including the IAEA and Interpol. Some countries do not participate in the NSS. Likewise, some of the participating countries in the NSS are not members of other organisations. Only 47 states and three organisations participated in the first NSS at Washington, while 53 states and four organisations participated in the second and third summits. Russia had dropped out in 2014, stating that the process is discriminatory and that most of the pledged commitments were met and the agenda has been exhausted.
Whatever its shortcomings, the NSS process has made considerable progress over the last few years. Russia has given some 20,000 warheads’ worth of highly enriched uranium out of its nuclear arsenal to America, which has been down-blended for electricity generation. Twelve countries have completely eliminated highly enriched uranium (HEU) or separated plutonium from within their borders. Twenty-seven countries have removed or disposed of nearly 3,000 kilograms of HEU and separated plutonium. Twenty-four HEU nuclear reactors in fourteen countries have been successfully converted to low-enriched fuel use, or verified as having been shut down. Japan has returned to the United States enough plutonium to make 50 nuclear bombs.
But despite these advances, a recent report by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a leading US nonproliferation watchdog, pointed to basic weaknesses in securing the world’s fissile materials. According to a 2015 study by the International Panel on Fissile Materials, enough plutonium and highly enriched uranium stockpiles remain to make the equivalent of 200,000 weapons of the magnitude that leveled Hiroshima in 1945. Many nations have continued to ramp up their nuclear capabilities. Countries like India and North Korea have built new bombs, and experts warn these fall behind in safety standards aimed at preventing accidental detonation. The Islamic State group has already used chemical weapons, and experts fear the jihadists are trying to secure fissile material to make a “dirty bomb.” Such a device is a regular bomb, but would explode radioactive material across a wide area.
Speaking at the summit, President Obama delivered a stark warning that “madmen” could kill and injure hundreds of thousands of innocent people using only plutonium the size of an apple. He said the danger of a terrorist group obtaining and using a nuclear weapon is one of the greatest threats to global security. He pointed out that while no terrorist has yet gained possession of a “dirty bomb” made of radioactive materials, such terrorists pose a persistent and evolving threat. Al-Qaida has long sought nuclear materials, while individuals involved in the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, both claimed by Islamic State, videotaped a senior manager who works at Belgian nuclear facility. He warned that if these madmen ever got their hands on a nuclear bomb or nuclear material they most certainly would use it to kill as many innocent people as possible. According to him, it would be a humanitarian, political, economic and environmental catastrophe with global ramifications for decades. It would change our world: “So we cannot be complacent. We have to build on our progress.”
There are more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with over 90% of them in the US and Russia. Obama admitted that the US and Russia were unlikely to further reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons during the remainder of his presidency. Obama also remarked that his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin has emphasised “military might” instead of economic development.
The communiqué issued at the end of the summit said that the threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism remains one of the greatest challenges to international security. The document noted that the Summits since 2010 have raised awareness of the nuclear threat and led to many meaningful and lasting improvements in nuclear security. The Summits have also strengthened the nuclear security architecture at national, regional and global levels, including through broadened ratification and implementation of international legal instruments regarding nuclear security.
The leaders gathered at Washington also reaffirmed their commitment to the shared goals of nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy. At the same time they noted that more work remains to be done to prevent non-state actors from obtaining nuclear and other radioactive materials, which could be used for malicious purposes. They said: “We commit to fostering a peaceful and stable international environment by reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism and strengthening nuclear security”. The leaders emphasised that sustaining security improvements requires constant vigilance at all levels, and they pledged that they will continue to make nuclear security an enduring priority.
They also underlined the need for countering nuclear and radiological terrorism through international cooperation, including sharing of information in accordance with states’ national laws and procedures: “International cooperation can contribute to a more inclusive, coordinated, sustainable, and robust global nuclear security architecture for the common benefit and security of all”. Expressing their continued collective determination to ensure political momentum and to strengthen nuclear security at national, regional and global levels, they resolved to implement the agreed Action Plans in support of the international organizations and initiatives to which they respectively belong .
What are the implications of the nuclear summit for Pakistan? There are some lobbies in the West which continue to raise misgivings about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Although the issues discussed at the summit were broad based, in the days ahead pressure will continue to be put on Pakistan to limit and reduce its nuclear arsenal. This will require greater diplomatic efforts on our part to defend our case at various international forums, especially in relation to the existential threat we face from India.
Post a Comment